Block, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, Check users, delete, edit, Moderators, move, oversight, protect, ratelimit-exempt, rollback, Administrators
20,232
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 77:
Line 77: − + + + + + + + +
→Critics: arguments from scripture
:''"How is it possible that those sacred historians, who carefully related all the miracles that took place at Christ's death, should have omitted to mention one so remarkable as the likeness of the body of our Lord remaining on its wrapping sheet? This fact undoubtedly deserved to be recorded. St John, in his Gospel, relates even how St Peter, having entered the sepulchre, saw the linen clothes lying on one side, and the napkin that was about his head on the other; but he does not say that there was a miraculous impression of our Lord's figure upon these clothes, and it is not to be imagined that he would have omitted to mention such a work of God if there had been any thing of this kind."''<ref>[[John Calvin]]: ''Traité des Reliques'', Geneve 1543, translated by '''Valerian Krasinski''': ''A treatise on Relics'', Edingburgh 1854</ref>
:''"How is it possible that those sacred historians, who carefully related all the miracles that took place at Christ's death, should have omitted to mention one so remarkable as the likeness of the body of our Lord remaining on its wrapping sheet? This fact undoubtedly deserved to be recorded. St John, in his Gospel, relates even how St Peter, having entered the sepulchre, saw the linen clothes lying on one side, and the napkin that was about his head on the other; but he does not say that there was a miraculous impression of our Lord's figure upon these clothes, and it is not to be imagined that he would have omitted to mention such a work of God if there had been any thing of this kind."''<ref>[[John Calvin]]: ''Traité des Reliques'', Geneve 1543, translated by '''Valerian Krasinski''': ''A treatise on Relics'', Edingburgh 1854</ref>
The flaw in Calvin's argument, of course, is that the disciples had no reason to study the Shroud at the time, and no access to modern photographic equipment; they had far greater concerns during the chaotic period after Christ's Resurrection.
The flaw in Calvin's argument, is that the disciples had no reason to study the Shroud at the time, and no access to modern photographic equipment; they had far greater concerns during the chaotic period after Christ's Resurrection.
Another argument against the legitimacy of this artifact is based on the account of John, as mentioned by Calvin above.
{{cquote|...[Simon Peter] saw the linen cloths lying there, and the handkerchief that had been around His head, not lying with the linen cloths, but folded together in a place by itself. -<small>John 20:6-7, NKJV</small>}}
This account clearly says that the cloth around his head was separate from the cloth around the rest of his body. Some translations even refer to strips of cloth which had been wrapped around him, rather than one solid cloth.
{{cquote|[Simon Peter] saw the strips of linen lying there, as well as the cloth that had been wrapped around Jesus’ head -<small>John 20:6b-7a, NIV</small>}}
These arguments have been used by a variety of people to say that scripture itself disproves the claims of the Catholic church.<br /><br />
Another critic was the scientist Walter McCrone (1906-2002), who insisted that it was a painting; this possibility has been thoroughly disproven.<ref>[http://www.shroud.com/piczek.htm Disproof that the Shroud is a painting, as explained by a professional artist]</ref>
Another critic was the scientist Walter McCrone (1906-2002), who insisted that it was a painting; this possibility has been thoroughly disproven.<ref>[http://www.shroud.com/piczek.htm Disproof that the Shroud is a painting, as explained by a professional artist]</ref>